Remanded

M/S Sanket Food Products Pvt. Ltd. Thr Director v. the Union of India and Ors.

Bombay HC30 Jan 2013WP/420/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court set aside an order rejecting an application for excise duty remission due to lack of opportunity of hearing. The court remanded the matter for a fresh hearing on merits after respondent counsel agreed to no procedural impediment.

What did the court decide?

Set aside impugned order dated 9.11.2012 and remanded case to respondent No.2 for fresh hearing on merits after giving opportunity to petitioner.

M/S Sanket Food Products Pvt. Ltd. Thr Director Vs the… — Banking and Recovery | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

Wp420.13

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 420 OF 2013

¶4

M/s. Sanket Food Products
Pvt. Ltd. A Company duly
registered under the Companies
Act, having the manufacturing
Units at A.1/26, A-9/12
Additional MIDC Area,
Jalna and Gut. No.186 of
Dawalwadi,
Tq. Badnapur, District Jalna.
Through its Director,
Shri Vijay Navinchandra Shah,
Age 43 years, Occ. Director,
R/o. Sumaru Vihar, Near Civil Club
SRPF Road, Jalna.

¶5

.. Petitioner.

¶6

Versus

¶7

1] The Union of India Through the Principal Secretary, Department of Finance and Direct Taxes, New Delhi.

¶8

2] The Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad.

¶9

3] The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Nanded Division, Nanded.

¶10

Wp420.13

¶11

¶12

4] The Superintendent, Central Excise and Customs Jalna Range, Jalna.

¶13

.. Respondents.

¶14

 Mr. Arshad Hidaytulla, Senior Advocate
 I/b. Shri S.M. Godsay, Advocate for petitioner.
 Mrs. Kalpalata B. Bharaswadkar, Advocate
 for respondents.

¶15

CORAM :- A.H. JOSHI &
 SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATE :- 30TH JANUARY, 2013.

¶16

JUDGMENT:- [PER A.H. JOSHI,J]

¶17

1]Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
Heard by consent of parties.

¶18

2]The background of the petition can be
summarized as follows :-

¶19

a]The petitioner is running an
industry engaged in manufacturing of Pan
Masala, Gutka etc.

¶20

Wp420.13

¶21

¶22

b]It has opted for Compound Levy
Scheme for payment of excise duty on the
basis of its installed manufacturing
capacity.

¶23

c]Thepetitionerhaspecuniary
liability of around Rs. 17,11,77,419/-
(Rupees Seventeen Crores Eleven Lakhs Seventy
seven Thousand Four Hundred nineteen only),
by the end of July, 2012. towards immediate
preceding assessments apart from other
liabilities.

¶24

d]Due to change in policy by the
Government of Maharashtra some time in July,
2012, the petitioner had to suspend the
activity of manufacturing Gutka etc.

¶25

e]The petitioner has some stock of
pouches manufactured and kept ready for
despatch, which, now, cannot be sold within
the territory of State of Maharashtra.

¶26

f]The petitioner has applied to the
respondent No.2 by filing application dated
30th October, 2012, for remission of liability
towards payment of excise duty towards goods,

¶27

Wp420.13

¶28

¶29

which now cannot be sold due to barrier of
law.

¶30

g]Petitioner's application referred to
above has been rejected by the impugned order
dated 9th November, 2012.

¶31

h]Petitioner is taking exception to
the said order and claims re-hearing by
dispensing with the alternate remedy.

¶32

3]Learned Advocate for respondents states

¶33

that :-

¶34

a]All actions are for antecedent,
while the application for remission is of
recent origin i.e. 30.10.2012. Therefore,
there is no urgency of hearing the
petition by dispensing with alternate
remedy.

¶35

b]The concession of remission does not
apply to the cases where the assessee is
liable to be governed by compounded levy of
taxes under Section 3A of the Central Excise
Act, 1944.

¶36

Wp420.13

¶37

¶38

c]Petitioner is a habitual defaulter.

¶39

d]The application for remission is
belated and came up only after seeing that
now the coercive recovery is at the
doorstep. The application for remission
is therefore not bonafide and honest
exercise.

¶40

e]The question of remission is to be
decided on the basis of record and it has
been so considered.

¶41

f]Petitioner has efficacious alternate
remedy.

¶42

The writ petition is thus strongly

¶43

opposed.

¶44

4]Petitioner's claim for remission is
liable to be considered on its own merits. For
enabling the petitioner to address the authority
i.e. respondent No.2 on merits, it was necessary

¶45

Wp420.13

¶46

¶47

that the petitioner should have been given an
intimation of hearing. The impugned order, prima
facie, appears to have been passed without any
formal hearing.

¶48

5]Considering the fact that the rejection

¶49

of remission would attract pecuniary liability
hearing to the petitioner would have advanced the
cause of justice.

¶50

6]Therefore, we had called upon Mrs.

¶51

Bharaswadkar, Standing counsel for the respondent
No.5 to take instructions as to whether case could
be relegated to the stage of hearing and for
passing fresh order.

¶52

7]In response to the query by this court,

¶53

learned Advocate for respondents has taken
instructions and, upon instructions, learned
Advocate has fairly made a statement that there

¶54

Wp420.13

¶55

¶56

would be no impediment for giving fresh hearing
and deciding the case in accordance with law by
dealing with each and every point raised in the
application for remission.

¶57

8]We accept the statement made by and on
behalf of the respondent No.2. In the result, we
set aside the impugned order dated 9.11.2012. The

¶58

case be relegated to the stage of hearing.
Learned Senior Advocate for petitioner states on
instructions that service of notice of hearing is
waived for which petitioner would appear before
the authority on 6th February, 2013.

¶59

9]On the date of hearing, the petitioner

¶60

shall be free and will be allowed to make
additional submissions and tender evidence, if
felt necessary.

¶61

Wp420.13

¶62

¶63

application for remission “Annexure F” (Page No.
99) to the petition would be heard and decided by
respondent No.2 after giving an opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner on all points.

¶64

11]We make it clear that we have not done

¶65

any adjudication about respective claims and
contentions and all points are kept open.

¶66

12]Rule made absolute in above terms with no

¶67

orders as to costs.

¶68

[SUNIL P. DESHMUKH,J][A.H. JOSHI,J]

¶69

grt/-.

M/S Sanket Food Products Pvt. Ltd. Thr Director v. the Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Sanket Food Products Pvt. Ltd. Thr Director v. the Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravindra Raosaheb Gaikwad @ Deshmukh Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Ors.

Girijamata Magasvargiya Mahila Audyogik Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. Vs Ravindra Raosaheb Gaikwad @ Deshmukh

Prakash Amrutlal Changedia Vs Nayansukh Motilal Kataria and Anr.

Bhanudas Mahadu Hajare and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Hanmant Bhimrao Patil Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Anil Trimbak Gade and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.